Did Men Really Walk On The Moon?

[Yttrium]

In my view... some people are closed to things that go against the common view...They accept what they are told exactly as it is narrated.

Some people can accept things that others can't. They question things that, in their mind, with their logic.. don't line up. Something doesn't pass the sniff test.

Using logic to question things is what I do all the time. I'm a skeptic. I'm not even sure if you exist. Did we really go to the moon? Is there really a moon? Are there really other people? I'm not convinced. But that doesn't mean I can't make a judgement on what seems likely, based on my experience. My perception of reality may be completely skewed, but it's been working out okay so far.

I don't accept what I'm told. I saw the scenes of an alleged moon landing on TV at the time. I saw scenes of the takeoffs and splashdowns. Sure, the space scenes could have been faked. But why go to that much cost and effort? The space program cost a ton of money, and that money can be tracked. The rockets were built. Those Saturn V rockets are huge and expensive. They were launched. Many people watched them go up. Considering the number of people involved in the splashdowns, those would have been very hard to fake. So maybe they dropped the capsule from a high-altitude balloon or something. Overall, the conspiracy would have to be huge, involving a great many people, all keeping silent about the fakery.

We have capsules on display. Spacesuits. Rocket bodies. We can study them at our leisure. All sorts of documentation are available to read. So this is way, way more than just some guys on TV telling us what to believe. If I put it all together, does it all add up? Even if it does add up, it still could have been faked, but then it still comes down to why, and it can't be a simplistic reason. There was too much money spent, too much work done, too many people involved.

So what do we have to suggest that the moon landings didn't take place? Some images you can't quite explain? Considering the strange things that can happen with optics, that seems pretty weak. But hey, it's something to think about. I'm just weighing that against everything else, and I have to lean a bit towards the idea that the moon landings actually happened.

 

[Leaf473]

Georgia GOP Chair Goes Full Flat-Earth, Says Globes Are Part of a Conspiracy

Failed Republican gubernatorial candidate Kandiss Taylor claimed the prevalence of globes is part of an effort to bury evidence the Earth is flat.

www.rollingstone.com

That's interesting, and apparently she has a podcast too. And is running for governor... Might be fascinating to listen to as I walk around the neighborhood

 

[Leaf473]

I'm a skeptic. I'm not even sure if you exist. Did we really go to the moon? Is there really a moon? Are there really other people?

Yes, a consistent skeptic! I like that

 

[JacksBratt]

Using logic to question things is what I do all the time. I'm a skeptic. I'm not even sure if you exist. Did we really go to the moon? Is there really a moon? Are there really other people? I'm not convinced. But that doesn't mean I can't make a judgement on what seems likely, based on my experience. My perception of reality may be completely skewed, but it's been working out okay so far.

I don't accept what I'm told. I saw the scenes of an alleged moon landing on TV at the time. I saw scenes of the takeoffs and splashdowns. Sure, the space scenes could have been faked. But why go to that much cost and effort? The space program cost a ton of money, and that money can be tracked. The rockets were built. Those Saturn V rockets are huge and expensive. They were launched. Many people watched them go up. Considering the number of people involved in the splashdowns, those would have been very hard to fake. So maybe they dropped the capsule from a high-altitude balloon or something. Overall, the conspiracy would have to be huge, involving a great many people, all keeping silent about the fakery.

We have capsules on display. Spacesuits. Rocket bodies. We can study them at our leisure. All sorts of documentation are available to read. So this is way, way more than just some guys on TV telling us what to believe. If I put it all together, does it all add up? Even if it does add up, it still could have been faked, but then it still comes down to why, and it can't be a simplistic reason. There was too much money spent, too much work done, too many people involved.

So what do we have to suggest that the moon landings didn't take place? Some images you can't quite explain? Considering the strange things that can happen with optics, that seems pretty weak. But hey, it's something to think about. I'm just weighing that against everything else, and I have to lean a bit towards the idea that the moon landings actually happened.

Why go to all that cost?

I have no idea if my reasoning is correct.. but.... It was a huge feather in the cap of the West.. to believe that they beat the Russians at this monumental accomplishment...

Russia embarrassed the US by putting Sputnik up....

The cost of fabricating this would be far less than actually doing it... Not only in dollars and cents... but lives, pride, winning a battle in the cold war.

The reasons to fake it are numerous.
The cost saving was tremendous.

You think that the money can be tracked? NASA gets 22.6 Billion dollars this year.

You think that you can find out the real areas that this amount is spent?

What do you think you would have to produce as a product, accomplishment, progress report to justify that kind of money?

Why do you think that the Russians never attempted to go to the moon?

 

[Yttrium]

Why go to all that cost?

I have no idea if my reasoning is correct.. but.... It was a huge feather in the cap of the West.. to believe that they beat the Russians at this monumental accomplishment...

Russia embarrassed the US by putting Sputnik up....

You know Russia could track the spacecraft, right? They have telescopes, and they can monitor the spacecraft telemetry. They could tell whether we were really going there or not.

The cost of fabricating this would be far less than actually doing it... Not only in dollars and cents... but lives, pride, winning a battle in the cold war.

I again point out that this stuff was actually built. The spacecraft, the suits, the rockets, everything. The rockets were launched, which cost gobs of money. What are you saving on? The Moon lander? Not with the costs involved in faking it. That's a lot of special effects.

Why do you think that the Russians never attempted to go to the moon?

Because it's not cost effective. We got a lot of science out of the moon landings, but that's been done. They would need a reason that justifies the cost. Just going for the sake of getting Russians on the Moon doesn't cut it.

 

[Bradskii]

Why go to all that cost?

I have no idea if my reasoning is correct.. but.... It was a huge feather in the cap of the West.. to believe that they beat the Russians at this monumental accomplishment...

Russia embarrassed the US by putting Sputnik up....

So you guys were able to track an orbiting object about 2 feet across that the Russians launched, but they couldn't track something the size of a Mac Truck leaving orbit and heading to the moon?

 

[JacksBratt]

You know Russia could track the spacecraft, right? They have telescopes, and they can monitor the spacecraft telemetry. They could tell whether we were really going there or not.

Ya, Russia is going to track our rockets, with a telescope..

I again point out that this stuff was actually built. The spacecraft, the suits, the rockets, everything. The rockets were launched, which cost gobs of money. What are you saving on? The Moon lander? Not with the costs involved in faking it. That's a lot of special effects.

Oh, for sure, they built that stuff..
1/ Look at the size of the rocket to get off the earth. Then look at the little puff of smoke used to get off the moon with 1/6 of the gravity of the earth... It should have been 1/6 the size.. not a fire cracker from Walgreens.
2/ There was only one.... that's one single test done with a human, in a space suit, in a vacuum .... He almost died...
You are telling me NASA went to space with only one test on the suit.... and it failed?

Because it's not cost effective. We got a lot of science out of the moon landings, but that's been done. They would need a reason that justifies the cost. Just going for the sake of getting Russians on the Moon doesn't cut it.

What did we learn from going to the moon?
Name even one useful experiment done one even the ISS.

 

[JacksBratt]

So you guys were able to track an orbiting object about 2 feet across that the Russians launched, but they couldn't track something the size of a Mac Truck leaving orbit and heading to the moon?

I have no idea what you are getting at.

 

[Yttrium]

Ya, Russia is going to track our rockets, with a telescope..

Oh, for sure, they built that stuff..
1/ Look at the size of the rocket to get off the earth. Then look at the little puff of smoke used to get off the moon with 1/6 of the gravity of the earth... It should have been 1/6 the size.. not a fire cracker from Walgreens.
2/ There was only one.... that's one single test done with a human, in a space suit, in a vacuum .... He almost died...
You are telling me NASA went to space with only one test on the suit.... and it failed?

What did we learn from going to the moon?
Name even one useful experiment done one even the ISS.

You're just repeating arguments from ignorance. Poking holes in the mountain, and expecting the mountain to deflate.

What's worse, being gullible and accepting whatever people tell you, or not learning and denying things you don't understand?

(That's a legitimate question. I don't know which is worse. They're both pretty bad.)

Anyway, I was just responding to your insinuation that people who think we landed on the Moon are just accepting what authority figures tell them. I have no intention of persuading you to accept the idea that people walked on the Moon. After all, if I'm not convinced, why should you be?

[I do feel obligated to point out that one test in a vacuum doesn't mean that was the only way the suit was tested. There were many other tests.]

Edit: Okay, I can't let the Moon lander one slide. The Saturn V needs far more than 6 times the amount of fuel because it has to push the command module and Moon lander a far greater distance against gravity.

 

[Leaf473]

1/ Look at the size of the rocket to get off the earth. Then look at the little puff of smoke used to get off the moon with 1/6 of the gravity of the earth... It should have been 1/6 the size..

I think it's more complicated than that. Adding more fuel because the rocket needs to be a bit bigger then means you have to add more fuel to lift off the fuel you added previously. Which means you need a bigger rocket to hold the fuel. Which means you need more fuel to lift that bigger rocket, and so on.

 

[Bradskii]

1/ Look at the size of the rocket to get off the earth. Then look at the little puff of smoke used to get off the moon with 1/6 of the gravity of the earth... It should have been 1/6 the size.. not a fire cracker from Walgreens.

The Apollo at lift off weighed about 3,000 tonnes. The lunar module about 15. Do the maths for heaven's sake.

This is simply embarrassing.

 

[trunks2k]

What are you saving on?

 

[JacksBratt]

I think it's more complicated than that. Adding more fuel because the rocket needs to be a bit bigger then means you have to add more fuel to lift off the fuel you added previously. Which means you need a bigger rocket to hold the fuel. Which means you need more fuel to lift that bigger rocket, and so on.

Ya, that logic doesn't work. You have a force of gravity that you have to overcome. You have to add fuel to lift the fuel in each case.

Either way the Saturn rocket was massive... and the lunar lander puff of smoke was, in direct comparison..... a tiny puff....

If they gave enough energy to the capsule on earth... all at once..in one burst... to send something them space.. It would have killed everyone on board.... without a doubt.

To lift the two men off the moon... even at 1/6 the gravity... in one burst... would have killed them too.

 

[JacksBratt]

The Apollo at lift off weighed about 3,000 tonnes. The lunar module about 15. Do the maths for heaven's sake.

This is simply embarrassing.

That 3,000 tons was mostly fuel...
All that was missing from the men on the moon was the orbiter and the legs of the lunar lander... All the rest of the mass was fuel and stages.. supposedly needed to get off the earth...

Even if you account for that... even if you say that the rocket to get them off the moon should have been 1/64 of the Saturn mega rocket...

The tiny puff of energy that we saw....... pathetic attempt at maths.

Now..... that..... is embarrassing.

 

[Bradskii]

To lift the two men off the moon... even at 1/6 the gravity... in one burst... would have killed them too.

You keep exhibiting your ignorance. Why don't we ask one of the astronauts? From here: Apollo 15 Flight Journal - Day 8, part 2: Rendezvous and Docking

Scott, from the Apollo 15 Lunar Surface Journal: "It was also very low g. The pictures show the thing popping off the ground. Pop? I think we went from 1/6th g to maybe a half or whatever. You weren't being pushed hard. We were standing up and you would think, boy, all those g's standing up. Not really. You could hardly tell."

Took me about two minutes to find that. Why don't you make the effort to find these things out?

 

[Leaf473]

Ya, that logic doesn't work. You have a force of gravity that you have to overcome. You have to add fuel to lift the fuel in each case.

I'm pretty sure the equations involve exponents, and that's where things become non-intuitive.

Kind of like this:
Suppose you have a square that's 2 ft on each side. That's four square feet. Now double the size of the square, to make it 4 ft on each side. So there must be 8 square feet inside, right? But it turns out there's actually 16.

 

[JacksBratt]

You keep exhibiting your ignorance. Why don't we ask one of the astronauts? From here: Apollo 15 Flight Journal - Day 8, part 2: Rendezvous and Docking

Scott, from the Apollo 15 Lunar Surface Journal: "It was also very low g. The pictures show the thing popping off the ground. Pop? I think we went from 1/6th g to maybe a half or whatever. You weren't being pushed hard. We were standing up and you would think, boy, all those g's standing up. Not really. You could hardly tell."

Took me about two minutes to find that. Why don't you make the effort to find these things out?

Yes, I should believe the men that were totally involved in the coverup... Unless... Unless you think that they were fooled.

I think that a simple observation of them in an interview, after they had just landed on the moon and returned... safely... a monumental accomplishment for all time.... And... and they were totally depressed, solemn and showed none of the excitement that would have been expected.

And yes... To get a space craft off of earth needed a Saturn V rocket that was, what, 10 stories tall, burning thrusters for 10 minutes or more..while the men were strapped to their seats pulling several "G"s.
But... to get of a space object 1/6 the gravity.. took a little "pop" while they were standing up...

For goodness sake, go to a theme park.. I've pulled more "G's" in some of those rides and I would have been knocked down if standing up..

Yet, you want me to believe that that was enough to get them off the moon.

OK...

 

[JacksBratt]

I'm pretty sure the equations involve exponents, and that's where things become non-intuitive.

Kind of like this:
Suppose you have a square that's 2 ft on each side. That's four square feet. Now double the size of the square, to make it 4 ft on each side. So there must be 8 square feet inside, right? But it turns out there's actually 16.

I'm sure that there was lots of math's.. I saw a movie about it...

It still makes no sense that a little puff of a "pop" is getting them off the moon while a Saturn V rocket needed continuous thrust for extensive amount of time to "break free of the gravity".

In that case.. If all else failed.. They could have just jumped off the moon.. I mean they would just have their own body weight and space suits.. Only one per man... with all the doubling and squaring of exponents...

Hey Neil jump up here would'ja....

Nonsense.

 

[Leaf473]

I'm sure that there was lots of math's.. I saw a movie about it...

Did you understand the math?

 

[Leaf473]

It still makes no sense that a little puff of a "pop" is getting them off the moon while a Saturn V rocket needed continuous thrust for extensive amount of time to "break free of the gravity".

Math can sometimes produce non-intuitive results.

Picture a container in the shape of a cube, one foot on each side.

Then look at a gallon of milk in your refrigerator. About how many of those gallons do you think that container would hold? I guessed one and a half, maybe a bit more. Assuming you don't already know and without looking it up, what would your guess be?